pmg_what_group_update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses the mutation medium severity, the dry-run default, confirmation requirement, the HTTP PUT method, the requirement for numeric ogroup, and the partial update behavior (non-None fields only). This is highly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and mutation severity, then proceeds to usage, parameter specifics, and update behavior. Technical details (API path, version) are included without redundancy. Efficiently communicates everything needed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the seven parameters and an existing output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, mutation behavior (dry-run, confirm), ogroup source, and partial update logic. It does not explain the output or error scenarios, but the presence of an output schema lessens that need. Slightly more could be said about prerequisites (e.g., group must exist) but overall complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 14% (only proximo_target has a description). The tool description adds context for the ogroup parameter (must be numeric ID from list) and explains that optional nullable fields are omitted if left as null. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of fields like and_, info, name, invert, which are somewhat self-explanatory but could benefit from additional context. The description partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it updates a PMG RuleDB 'what' object group config, using a specific API path and requiring a numeric ogroup ID. It distinguishes from create/delete/get operations through the verb 'update', though it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear usage guidelines: dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute, requires PROXIMO_PMG_* config, and ogroup must come from pmg_what_groups_list. Explains that only non-None fields are sent. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but sufficient for a mutation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.